Hacker News Reader

Comment by klyrs | Hacker News Reader

What does the rest of that sentence

> "... or to have his name publicly attached to Republican candidates."

say about the contemporary right?

Looks to me like the biggest fraudster of the century was hedging his bets. Why does that say anything about either side specifically?

View on HN

Well I guess at a minimum we can say that the party of Bernie Sanders appear to be just as sleazy and corrupt as they accuse their opponents. I think SBF was the single largest donor to the Dems in the last election.

You know Bernie is an independent, right? Do try to keep up.

And no, one scuzzy donor who got caught and is currently standing trial for his crimes doesn't come even remotely close to the level of electing a known conman.

Yet we just have to take SBFs word for him donating equally the both sides. I do not find him trustworthy. I also would point out that his parents are both involved in left pacs. I'm sure he has no reason to lie.

Of the donation we have evidence of he seemed to donate equally to candidates on both sides but heavily favored the left when it came to PAC donations.

Summing up the PAC donation from the link below give us:

Left: 44.8 Right: 23.2

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...

What do you mean "take SBFs word"? The article is citing claims by made by the prosecution who are accusing him of illegal donations. That's the literal opposite of taking SBF's word. But here you are spreading partisan FUD. Pardon my french, but lay off the conspiratorial crackpipe.

Making illegal donations is not the same thing at all as donating equally to both sides. The indictment does not say he donated equally to both side like you are trying to imply in your post.

He hedged his bets 2-1. For every dollar he gave to the right he gave 2 to left. I have provided the evidence to support this. You have not and cannot refute this.

Pretty hard to have a discussion with you when you try and push a political narrative rather than discuss things in good faith.

Who said he donated equally? That's your accusation. I maintain my original stance: his behavior says nothing about "the left" or "the right." Your focus on who he donated to is entirely missing my point.

I apologize if I misunderstood your original comment. I read it as you saying SBF hedged his bets by giving equally to both sides so they both are just as guilty here.

In my original response I was pretty clear I was specifically saying we only have SBFs word that he donated equally. I mean that is the sentence I wrote. You responded by insulting me, implying I do crack, and saying the article has the proof from the prosecutor. Which is funny because the article does not contain a single piece of evidence that shows he donated equally to both sides. I guess maybe you didn't actually read my first comment and were just chomping at the bit to be able to insult me and call me a drug user?

You then accuse me of spreading partisan fud when in fact that is exactly what I pointed out you doing. The idea that he donated equally to both sides (which is how I interpreted your first post and clearly listed as the thing I called out in my response) is partisan fud.

As for you last point. Yes the fact that he donated 2x times as much to the left than the right is absolutely relevant to his behavior. Its completely reasonable to assume he donated to the people he though would be able to help him in the future.

In what way have you addressed the OP's insinuation that I was responding to? I asked a specific question:

> Why does that say anything about either side specifically?

I agree with you on a point: we can draw conclusions about SBF by examining SBF's behavior. But that is not what OP said -- OP said that we can make conclusions about the left by examining SBF's behavior. That is what I take issue with.

That you continue to focus on a strawman, whether or not he donated to both sides equally, is completely uninteresting. Good day to you, I do not wish to further this "conversation" as you continue to talk past my point. Sea lion.

I addressed it in the last post. Let me try and explain it in simpler, easier to understand steps that doesn't force you to use critical thinking. SBF was breaking the law and he knew it. He wanted a get out of jail free card so he went and donated money to politicians/groups willing to help. His behavior shows that he was willing to find politicians that he thought may be able to help him down the line. The donation records show the left appears to be the side more willing to do this as that is where 2x more money went.

Again you insult me rather than having a discussion.

Ah, thanks for saying what you mean instead of relying on vague insinuation. It really does help to spell it out like that.

So, yes, we have evidence that he donated. But I have yet to see any that the recipients were willing to help. And yes, he probably wants a get out of jail card ("free" being a debatable point here, on one hand he spent a pretty penny but on the other hand the money was not his). But let's not forget the context: he's over his head in legal trouble right now and nobody is rushing to save his idiot self.

Trump shamelessly pardoned his cronies. Biden has that power in this situation. Does he use it? What does this say about "the left" again?

Assuming the donations achieved their full utility, otherwise he would have just donated more money - The donation records show the right are just cheaper to buy, nearly half the price.

Are you seriously using the "rational investor hypothesis" to SBF right now? Economists have the wildest hot takes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com